justin19801

Interesting you claim APBT, SBT, BTx and ASBT (whatever they are but it proves my point) are one and the same, so do I (except for BTx). In other jurisdictions so is the Boxer and any shorthaired muscular looking dog, as is the AmBulldog. I agree apples and pears is a poor comparison, chalk and cheese much better. Even dog fighters have never breed for aggression until the involvement of the gangs in recent years. An aggressive dog is an unstable and scared dog. No good for anything let alone fighting. Data is not knowledge, statistics 101. Poor statistics are worse than no statistics. No one is calling anyone a NAZI, compare the Nuremburg Laws and BDL and tell me the difference. APBTs are just dogs. Why does no one feel compassion for the victims of other breeds? Probably coz they can't get on their high horse and pontificate.

It's not ONLY media reports he also used a registry from the human society. Who get their info from ... media reports, anti-intellectualism at it's best. At least now due to public pressure they want APBTs evaluated, even those from fighting rings. A turn around of massive proportions thanks to the Michael Vick dogs and Best Friends Animal Society. Only the nutters at PETA openly support BDL. Not surprising given their white Anglo middle class supporters. BDL will end in Australia when it becomes socially unacceptable to belong to anti-intellectual groups such as the R$PCA.

I have found DoL to be a microcosm of the dog world. In fact if anything it is a lot tamer than in the show and trial circuits. It is a good foundation to question your ideas and listen to other opinions. I have noticed there is a pack mentality against some posters who stop posting or respond in kind and I think get banned, which is unconscionable in the circumstances. But overall I've found DoL to be a +ve experience so far.

Just call the dog a Lab cross. The new owners will need to know the situation but killing the dog because of her looks is animal cruelty. Needless to say the same types who would hand over Anne Frank coz "it's the law" will beg to differ.

The Sachs study is meaningless as it relies on media reports. An anti-intellectual position if there ever was one. It's supporters fail to understand in the US the term pit bull refers to a group of breeds, the most defined one being the AST! Apples and pears, not anti-intellectualism just bad research and poor statistics. I have never heard any APBT supporter blame the victim, those supporting BDL definitely attack APBT owners though. No matter which way one swings the cat in the end CDC does not and never has listed breed as a determinant of aggression, despite studying this topic more than any other group. A cursory glance at Germanys Nuremburg laws will quickly uncover the template for BDL and finally the anti-terror laws. Racism in all but name.

Yep and here is the data through to 1998 from the same author. I'm still on the fence with BSL. I'm not sure which way to go but with the current situation with bull breed/crosses attacks the public demand action. It's amazing that when people see statistics that don't suit their purpose then they'll pick it to pieces (as in what sandgrubber posted) yet if they see one where bull breeds/crosses arn't in the top 10 (havn't seen one of those yet) they'll wave it around for the whole world to see. The tenacity and aggression in the APBT"S (again I only mention this bull breed because it's the one I am most familiar with) could be reduced substantially through proper breeding practice but from the 1980's imports till now that is not many generations. PLUS the breed didn't have the opportunity with BSL. Excepting of course the underground breeders which again won't do the breed any favors by breeding APBT's illegally. I'm sure the ones that frequent here hate me mentioning it and hate it every time I do. When I don't agree with what was mentioned in the "news" forum, instead of addressing my point: "APBT's are not for the "average joe" dog owner. Not ONE person addressed that. Instead posts get selectively misquoted and insults such as "bog ignorant" "uneducated and illiterate" then t-shirt quotes of "judge the deed, not the breed" People who post on these forums need to be aware that the journalists read these forums as do the general public. I can't remember if it was the Geelong Adi or the Herald Sun but the Australian dog forums were referred to in their newspaper article. If the DoL people are the same people that are at the forefront of anti-BSL campaigning then they havn't got a hope in Hades of changing BSL legislation with their attitude. APBTs are not naturally aggressive. Even dogs from fighting lines lose their gameness after three generations. BDL solves nothing, everywhere it is introduced it results in increases in dog attacks. Of course compassion is only shown to victims of alleged APBTs. If people truly were interested in solving the dog bite epidemic they would look at jurisdictions such as Calgary, the most successful in North America. BDL is about ending pet ownership, not reducing dog attacks. This link was exposed by Vicky Hearne the author of Bandit: Dossier of a dangerous dog nearly two decades ago.

The Thompson data are what I believe to epitomise Junk Science when it comes to breed id. The self description of breeds (if you accept that then you would have to accept the Cockapoo as a purebred when owners describe them as such) the numbers involved (does anyone really belive nearly 7% of owned dogs are EBTs) probably explains why it morphed to BTs (all types) leads to comparing half a dozen different breeds to individual breeds, statistically irrelevant. A good example of poor stats being worse than no stats. Despite this he still claimed Pit Bulls (whatever they are) were the worst of them all because someone told him so. i.e. he didn't even trust his own stats. I know because I talked to him. BSL or more correctly Breed Discriminatory legislation are not about dogs but about social control (govts) fundraising (R$PCA) and the end of pet ownership (PETA, Humane Society). For many it is about racism as the white anglo middleclass orgs victimise the coloured lower income groups traditionally attracted to these dogs. They can't openly discriminate against them but they can kill their dogs.

My chihuahua is agressive, but most of the time nobody cares because if he's not in anyone's face he's not a danger to anyone, the only way he might succeed in severing my arm was if I had died already and he'd had a week or so to gnaw at it. So what we have is a combination of powerful animals and humans who no longer use them for work and therefore have little understanding of the proper management of powerful animals, and the reasons for it. Therefore controls over ownership and breeding are a logical step to take IMO. Control over ownership = control of who, where and when the breed can be owned = BANNING of the breed where it is decreed the breed cannnot be owned. Not sure why you would equate controls with banning breeds? Going back to my driver's licence analogy, if you obtain an open license you can own and drive whatever car you want. There don't seem to be any moves to change that as far as I'm aware (unless you count people whining about 4x4s in the city) so why on earth would ensuring people have demonstrable knowledge of dog behaviour and breed-specific requirements become a ban on certain breeds? It's well established that a ban on specific breeds has no impact, however enforcement of education is likely to have a positive impact. A driver's license doesn't restrict anyone from doing anything, it's merely a certification of competence, if you are deemed competent you get one if you aren't you go back to the books until you can prove you are. Hell it might even be useful for people to demonstrate a basic knowledge of chihuahuas before getting one too! You may prefer the current status quo where you can get a pup without having to prove you know anything about dogs or the breed in question but it's fairly clear to me and others here that the status quo isn't working for humans or for dogs. 1,500 people a year die from competent people with licences!

Correct, just another way to end pet ownership. The link between ending pet ownership and animal rights/welfare groups was made in the US over a decade ago. We are still behind them on that one. Use of positive reinforcement at least involves people training their dog and can't be all bad. The greatest problem is isolation of dogs. In the 70s mums were at home as the kids grew up, now they're out working and kids are in kindy etc and the dog spend most of it's life alone, not good for a social companion animal. Council fines etc reinforce this problem. Education is the key and that's where we should be directing our resources IMHO.

CDC have looked at the stats and found they are meaningless, primarily for the denominator. After 20 years of studying the topic I'm sure they would have found a correlation if it existed. The NSW study is meaningless. I'm sure the woman whose limbs were eaten by a Rotti in the UK would beg to differ as would the parents of the child killed by a Rotti in Vic in 12/08. Everytime BSL is introduced dog attacks increase. SA, UK, Ohio Italy Netherlands the evidence is well and truly in. BSL doesn't work. Calgary is the most successful north American municipality in regards to dog control. No BSL just making people responsible for the actions of their dogs. It seems that is what really scares the BSL supporters.

If people bothered to read the study they would find it was based on media reports. Given that this dog has been called an APBT, APBTx, SBTx, APBTxSBT which media report would they have used to include this attack in the study? Furthermore they state that any shorthaired muscular dog and and longhaired black and tan can be labelled an APBT or GSD. They at worst only say there may be a potential problem with the breeds. Apart from using a decade old study which CDC has now walked away from nowhere in any of their recommendations do they list breed as a determinant of aggression. In fact they have discounted it completely with Dr Gilchrist the head of that section actually saying "unless there's a study I don'y know about there is no breed problem with aggression" (paraphrased for obvious reasons. All this study proves is that a little knowledge in the hands of the ignorant can be dangerous. E-mail CDC and they will tell you the same. They take a while to answer because of the number of queries they get but they will get back to you. Unlike the R$PCA they are not donation driven and try to stop dog attacks, not make money from them.,

Like people who claim their dog is a purebred cockapoo I suppose. Yep, sounds like people really know dogs breeds .

Governments in trouble as the incompetent Brumby government is always fall back on BSL as a distraction. Will they go as far as Qld in curtailing rights by approving warrantless searches .

What are the none fighting lines? Wow!! my boy was Jeep tag.........lol Maybe you can give the name of the first fighting dog imported in Aus... They were Reid dogs imported from UK into WA as quarantine was cheaper as no rabies in UK. They weren't fighting dogs. Some UKC dogs came in the East but haven't been able to find their names. They were the modern type with registration. Banjo Pattersaon described a dog fight by APBTs in Botany Bay in 1900 so they have been here over a century. First fighting lines were Marlowe and Jeep and STP. The first fighting dog was Gr Ch Tank. This has nothing to do with thread just answering your questions.

Of course none of the supporters of a corrupt system ever speed, understate their income for tax etc. The animals needed help, more than likely they or others will die to line the pockets of the lawyers and R$PCA staff.

What???? After staring at your post for about 20 minutes I think I may get what you are trying to say. The reason they sometimes cut heads off dogs involved in attacks in the US may be because there is no information on the dog's rabies vaccination status, therefore testing of brain tissue needs to be performed to ascertain whether the dog had rabies. Important to know if you were bitten by a dog. And if a dog is not registered, there may be no proof on hand that the dog is vaccinated. I don't understand your dig at "the white Western world" that I am supposed to be so enamoured with. Simply, I am not going to comment on the animal control practices of other countries when I am not familiar with them. The ones I mentioned are the ones I know about. There is no racism intended. I have been to some countries where they don't have registration - but they are third world countries. They have enough trouble with people welfare let alone animal welfare. I don't know anything about correlations between kill rates and not having registration, versus with registration (although I do with cats). But then that was the not issue I was responding to. However, if you do have soundly researched, robust information on that matter please let us know - it would be interesting. You say that if it is made too expensive to own dogs then fewer people will. Although you haven't clarified I think you are referring to the costs governments impose such as registration and fines. But what makes the need for registration and fines in the first place? If there were no problems with animals in the community then there would be no need for a government response. No complaints to be investigated, no roaming animals to impound. But it's not a perfect world, unfortunately some animals are allowed to cause a nuisance that needs to be resolved, some do need to be impounded until their owners can be found. These activities cost money. Registration and fines help to pay for these activities. Unfortunately, some people all too easily acquire pets and all too easily dispose of them when things get a bit rough. It's not about things being too expensive. It's about choice. And if you don't value something you're not going to fight very hard for it are you? Sounds like something out of the PETA / R$PCA manual of pet ownership, not . That's what rates are for .

Excellent suggestion. Many people supporting the governments action don't understand that the more expensive it is to get, keep and maintain a dog, the fewer people will own one. In the end the real victim of the government was the dog. No it isn't an excellent suggestion, although its sounds fair enough. The reality is that it would cost more to organise and supervise community service work than the fine is worth. Justin, if somebody decides that they cannot afford to properly look after a dog, or to pay a small fine if the dog is found out wandering, then they do not deserve to own a dog. This dog wasn't a victim of the government. It was the victim of the owner that decided to get rid of it. Actually it is an excellent suggestion. Australia continues to be one of the world's few countries that even registers dogs yet still kills them in numbers which defy belief, and creates dangerous dogs through enforced isolation, despite massive rates. The cost arguement is as silly when applied to dogs as it is to children or saying people shouldn't get sick if they can't afford health insurance. It is time that the dog killers were held accounntable for their actions. "just following orders" doesn't cut it any more. I know - we'll just send all the homeless dogs to you. You seem to have all the answers to everything, although where you get your facts and figures (and logic) is beyond me. Australia one of the few countries that registers dogs? Gee, don't tell that to the US, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, France, Switzerland, Ireland, etc. They may feel a bit left out... We'll just send all the corpses to you for disposal shall we? Perhaps you'd prefer to kill them yourself? UK and US don't have mandatory registration for a start and the world consists of far more countries than the small numbers mentioned. Check your facts before posting, that way you wont look too much like a goose. Honk, Honk!! Gee, I must have visited different countries to see how they do there animal management... I could have sworn it was the US and the UK, but I must have been wrong...These places had licencing in place - something to do with rabies control... but what would I know? Honk, honk, they must have seen me fly in, dodgied up computer systems and rego forms just for me. Yes, there are other countries out there then the ones I mentioned. Many of them have shocking animal control methods. You should visit the incinerator facilities that they have at Japan. I don't want to see any animals die. But you seem intent on blaming everyone else but the person responsible for it - the owner. Remember, she was the one that decided to leave the dog in the pound rather than pay for its release. Yup you got it wrong alright. Any evidence the few countries with licencing have lower kill rates, nup you didn't look at that either. The reason they cut the heads off dogs involved in attacks even in areas in the US with licencing would be? As for the white Western world you seem so enamoured with, wont even go there. honk honk. Make it too expensive to own dogs and fewer people will, but then there are those who would rather see a dog dead than fed. I wasn't too keen on her as she let one go, but when I see the alternative

If only that were the case instead of people lauding their power of life and death over the poor creatures or there's nothing else they can do .

Animal Welfare is not just about the animals, it is also necessary to educate and help people to provide the care for their animals need. Why is it so difficult for some people to understand this

Excellent suggestion. Many people supporting the governments action don't understand that the more expensive it is to get, keep and maintain a dog, the fewer people will own one. In the end the real victim of the government was the dog. No it isn't an excellent suggestion, although its sounds fair enough. The reality is that it would cost more to organise and supervise community service work than the fine is worth. Justin, if somebody decides that they cannot afford to properly look after a dog, or to pay a small fine if the dog is found out wandering, then they do not deserve to own a dog. This dog wasn't a victim of the government. It was the victim of the owner that decided to get rid of it. Actually it is an excellent suggestion. Australia continues to be one of the world's few countries that even registers dogs yet still kills them in numbers which defy belief, and creates dangerous dogs through enforced isolation, despite massive rates. The cost arguement is as silly when applied to dogs as it is to children or saying people shouldn't get sick if they can't afford health insurance. It is time that the dog killers were held accounntable for their actions. "just following orders" doesn't cut it any more. I know - we'll just send all the homeless dogs to you. You seem to have all the answers to everything, although where you get your facts and figures (and logic) is beyond me. Australia one of the few countries that registers dogs? Gee, don't tell that to the US, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, France, Switzerland, Ireland, etc. They may feel a bit left out... We'll just send all the corpses to you for disposal shall we? Perhaps you'd prefer to kill them yourself? UK and US don't have mandatory registration for a start and the world consists of far more countries than the small numbers mentioned. Check your facts before posting, that way you wont look too much like a goose.

We have been providing foster care for animals when their owners are in this sort of predicment until they are able to find accommodation which allows them to bring their animals home. We are working with women's refuges in the same way. We have also been able to help people find accommodation which allows pets with our counselling services. With the help of Eukanuba we currently feed about 80 cats and dogs to give help to people who have hit hard times. We do this for a limited period and provide help for them physically and with counselling to try to make sure the problems are not recurring. The aim is to do what we can to keep owner and animal together but we have hit some who really needed to thin them out because they were being neglected and there was no alternative in sight so we've helped with rehoming and allowed the owners to feel involved.Then we help follow up with welfare services to ensure all is well for both owner and animal.

Excellent suggestion. Many people supporting the governments action don't understand that the more expensive it is to get, keep and maintain a dog, the fewer people will own one. In the end the real victim of the government was the dog. No it isn't an excellent suggestion, although its sounds fair enough. The reality is that it would cost more to organise and supervise community service work than the fine is worth. Justin, if somebody decides that they cannot afford to properly look after a dog, or to pay a small fine if the dog is found out wandering, then they do not deserve to own a dog. This dog wasn't a victim of the government. It was the victim of the owner that decided to get rid of it. Actually it is an excellent suggestion. Australia continues to be one of the world's few countries that even registers dogs yet still kills them in numbers which defy belief, and creates dangerous dogs through enforced isolation, despite massive rates. The cost arguement is as silly when applied to dogs as it is to children or saying people shouldn't get sick if they can't afford health insurance. It is time that the dog killers were held accounntable for their actions. "just following orders" doesn't cut it any more.

This is a good story. I do have issues with humans involving animals in their problems though.

Excellent suggestion. Many people supporting the governments action don't understand that the more expensive it is to get, keep and maintain a dog, the fewer people will own one. In the end the real victim of the government was the dog.

Interesting thread. It seems Councils don't need to base or enforce legislation on facts. Divide and conquoer like the R$PCA and ALP. It seems councillors are happy for others to kill dogs as it appears their courage only stems from a bench.